• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The truth of Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cardinal said:
See? A veritable ocean of excuses as far as the eye can see.

Funny how people in support of AGW are always somehow able to quote those studies, and don't have to resort to blogs as their sole means of debate.
Click to expand...

Excuses ???? Please point out ONE excuse in my post.
 
USA_1 said:
Is this an alarmist site?
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
or this?
Center for Climatic Research: Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies
or this?
Climate and Society - The Earth Institute, Columbia University
or this?
Purdue Climate Change Research Center | Purdue University
Click to expand...

Ohhh, you are claiming there are studies disputing AGW on these sites ???

Please provide links since I'd love to see them. I have seen a few studies on these sites dispelling AGW, but very few.
 
Gill said:
Ohhh, you are claiming there are studies disputing AGW on these sites ???

Please provide links since I'd love to see them. I have seen a few studies on these sites dispelling AGW, but very few.
Click to expand...

No, these university studies support AGW. I asked if you thought they were alarmist sites.
 
USA_1 said:
No, these university studies support AGW. I asked if you thought they were alarmist sites.
Click to expand...

Why would I think that ???

It appears that you had a bit of a comprehension problem when you read my post.... try again.

I said:

"Not many scientific reports dispelling AGW on alarmists sites like RealClimate."

If you only look at these sites, you probably won't see many scientific papers contradicting AGW.

Was that so hard to understand ??

P.S. NOAA is not a university.
 
Gill said:
Ohhh, you are claiming there are studies disputing AGW on these sites ???

Please provide links since I'd love to see them. I have seen a few studies on these sites dispelling AGW, but very few.
Click to expand...

That's a rather weak attempt to reframe the debate. It's been claimed by AGW deniers that there are hundreds of studies debunking AGW, and I've asked to see just one such study, a rather simple challenge, if you ask me, which has so far gone completely ignored. Instead I've received an endless array of excuses for why they can't back up their claims. Since it the anti-agw crowd that claims that there are scientific studies debunking agw, it is up to them to find them, not ours because we've never made that claim to begin with.
 
Cardinal said:
That's a rather weak attempt to reframe the debate. It's been claimed by AGW deniers that there are hundreds of studies debunking AGW, and I've asked to see just one such study, a rather simple challenge, if you ask me, which has so far gone completely ignored. Instead I've received an endless array of excuses for why they can't back up their claims. Since it the anti-agw crowd that claims that there are scientific studies debunking agw, it is up to them to find them, not ours because we've never made that claim to begin with.
Click to expand...

You didn't ask me for one. If you had, I would gladly supply one.

How many would you like ??
 
Gill said:
You're right. Not many scientific reports dispelling AGW on alarmists sites like RealClimate. You actually have to look at scientific journals to find them.
Click to expand...

LOL! Pop them on up here then and let's take a look at them.
 
Gill said:
You didn't ask me for one. If you had, I would gladly supply one.

How many would you like ??
Click to expand...

One. From a qualified climatologist working in the field of climatology, reasonably recent.

Sort of sad that I have to spell it out like that, but that's the sort of debate this tends to be.
 
Whovian said:
please give us 'your' definition of this.
Click to expand...

Well, let me ask you this in an attempt to simplify this a little as we could go around and around refining the definition of "qualified" for the next ten years:

Let's say you have a million dollars and you want to give that money to a qualified investment manager. Would "qualified," as in, works in the field of investment in the evenings in between working at Appleby's, be good enough for you? What if "qualified" meant he was working in getting his degree in investment at Podunk Community College, would you go with that guy? How about the guy who graduated from Harvard, has his own firm and has been successfully investing people's money for the last twenty years, would you feel a little more comfortable handing your million over to him? On the other side of that, what if the investment manager had all the qualifications of that last guy I described, but was Bernie Madoff's close friend and student for the last ten years, would that still work for you?

A little common sense here is all I'm asking for.
 

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on Tropospheric Temperature
Conducted by two scientists from Australia and one from New Zealand, the peer-reviewed paper assessed the influence of the Southern Oscillation Index, (which manifests north of the Equator as El Nino), on global temperature variation. At least 81 percent of the variance in global temperatures is explained by the Southern Oscillation Index, according to the study. The study findings were recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Click to expand...
 
Cardinal said:
Well, let me ask you this in an attempt to simplify this a little as we could go around and around refining the definition of "qualified" for the next ten years:

Let's say you have a million dollars and you want to give that money to a qualified investment manager. Would "qualified," as in, works in the field of investment in the evenings in between working at Appleby's, be good enough for you? What if "qualified" meant he was working in getting his degree in investment at Podunk Community College, would you go with that guy? How about the guy who graduated from Harvard, has his own firm and has been successfully investing people's money for the last twenty years, would you feel a little more comfortable handing your million over to him? On the other side of that, what if the investment manager had all the qualifications of that last guy I described, but was Bernie Madoff's close friend and student for the last ten years, would that still work for you?

A little common sense here is all I'm asking for.
Click to expand...

in other words, you don't really 'have' a definitive definition of qualified climatologist working in the field of climatology.
 
Whovian said:
in other words, you don't really 'have' a definitive definition of qualified climatologist working in the field of climatology.
Click to expand...

If you like I'd be happy to invest your money for you. I'm an artist by day.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I see why you've been pre-emptively going after me on the definition of "qualified." Your linked article doesn't even say who these "two scientists from Australia and one from New Zealand" even are.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on Tropospheric Temperature
Click to expand...

The washington examiner took two unrelated sentences and put them together. The real sentence is "The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics." rather than "At least 81 percent of the variance in global temperatures is explained by the Southern Oscillation Index, according to the study."

I'd be happy to explain tropics weather in a longer post, as this I actually do know quite a bit about, as I actually did research with adam sobel at lamont-doherty when as a graduate student and he specializes in climate in the tropics.
 
Cardinal said:
Oh, I see why you've been pre-emptively going after me on the definition of "qualified." Your linked article doesn't even say who these "two scientists from Australia and one from New Zealand" even are.
Click to expand...

GOOGLE is your friend when looking up facts. I was simply pointing the direction.

However, since you used the phrase 'climatologist', and 'climatology', I thought it appropriate you define your use of those terms before continuing on. Various posters in this thread seem to have different definitions of those two words, each believing they are correct and others are incorrect, so I thought establishing your preferred definition prior to looking for studies debunking GW would be appropriate.
 
iamitter said:
Robert M. Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chris de Freitas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Other guy is a private sector consultant, not an academic.
Click to expand...


Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
J. D. McLean

Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia

C. R. de Freitas

School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

R. M. Carter

Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Click to expand...
Sound reasonable versed in climatology to me. Study published in the JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH Atmospheres... sounds reasonably like a journal where people who know climatology would have a study published.

Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Actually, those scientists manipulated the data with derivatives as noise amplifiers, so there's no point explaining it.
There was a peer-reviewed rebuttal http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et alJGR09_formatted.pdf in the very same journal a year later.

For actual science on ENSO, refer to Climate Modeling and Diagnostics Group Home Page | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

ENSO for cold : Northern Hemisphere winter snow anomalies: ENSO, NAO and the winter of 2009/10

Only somewhat related, but it's about ENSO and I helped work on it way back, so what the hell: ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/camargo_emanuel_sobel_jclim07.pdf


"Abstract. McLean et al. [2009] claim that the El Ni˜no/Southern Oscillation (ENSO),
as represented by the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), accounts for as much as 72%
of the global tropospheric temperature anomaly (GTTA) and an even higher 81% of this
anomaly in the tropics. They conclude that the SOI is a “dominant and consistent influence
on mean global temperatures,” “and perhaps recent trends in global temperatures”.
However, their analysis is incorrect in a number of ways, and greatly overstates
the influence of ENSO on the climate system. This comment first briefly reviews what
is understood about the influence of ENSO on global temperatures, then goes on to show
that the analysis of MFC09 severely overestimates the correlation between temperature
anomalies and the SOI by inflating the power in the 2–6 year time window while filtering
out variability on longer and shorter time scales. It is only because of this faulty analysis
that they are able to claim such extremely high correlations. The suggestion in their
conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature
is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in that paper,
especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported
correlations."
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
so again, we're back to waht it always comes back to for GW enthusiasts... 'my scientists are better than yours'. got it.
Click to expand...

You're doing the same thing "your" scientists did - running from the truth. Just as an fyi, they refused to respond to those 8 scientists exposing their data manipulation.

When "your" scientists manipulate data, yes, they are inherantly worse than those who don't need to.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's quite plausible to say that we humans aren't going to be able to address the problem in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

That's because there are too many questionable processes.

1. Nobody can predict the future.

2. How the GW data was gathered is too vague.

3. 90 percent of the people can't relate with scientific explanations.

4. People won't voluntarily change their lifestyle habits.

ricksfolly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom